FAME MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and derived income from running the business of news channels. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that, during the year under consideration, the assessee company had received share capital amounting to Rs.33,74,500/- along with share premium amounting to Rs.2,94,70,500/-, totalling to

I.T.A. No.49/Pat/2026 Fame Media Private Limited ; AY: 2011-12 Rs.3,28,45,000/-. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish information regarding the share capital, including share premium, u/s 133(6) of the Act. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued, but the assessee did not comply with the notices. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, where the assessee partially complied with the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the submissions of the assessee and believed that the amount of Rs.3,28,45,000/- was not properly explained by the assessee. Therefore, the said amount was added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act to the returned income of Rs. 37,220/-, by sustaining the total income at Rs. 3,28,82,220/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where the assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer. However, before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee consecutively failed to comply with the notices issued on 16 consecutive dates. Ultimately, the Ld. CIT(A) had no other option but to decide the appeal on the merits of the case by sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Still aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, although notices were issued by the Registry from time to time. Since the issue has been pending for quite some time, we cannot keep this appeal pending for an inordinate period. Therefore, we heard the matter with the assistance of the Ld. DR. 5. We, after perusing the material available on record. We find that although substantial additions were made in the case of the assessee, the assessee miserably failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order against the

I.T.A. No.49/Pat/2026 Fame Media Private Limited ; AY: 2011-12 assessee by sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, feel it necessary to remand the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) during the first appellate proceedings, in the interest of justice and fair play, we remand the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices without any fail. 6. In terms of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 12th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Laxmi Prasad Sahu] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 12.05.2026. DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches